1 / 13

BACKGROUND

Comparison of radial versus femoral access in patients undergoing invasive management for acute coronary syndromes: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis.

schuyler
Download Presentation

BACKGROUND

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparison of radial versus femoral access in patients undergoing invasive management for acute coronary syndromes: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis G. Biondi-Zoccai,1 C. Moretti,1 F. Sciuto,1 P. Omedé,1 E. Cavallero,1 C. La Spina,1 V. Infantino,1 F. Colombo,1 E. Giraudi,1 E. Menditto,1 C. Iacovino,1 P. Agostoni,2 E. Romagnoli,3 M. Bollati,1 G. Trevi,1 I. Sheiban1 1University of Turin, Turin, Italy (gbiondizoccai@gmail.com); 2AZ Middelheim, Antwerp, Belgium; 3Policlinico Casilino, Rome, Italy

  2. BACKGROUND • An invasive management encompassing coronary angiography and, when indicated, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), is recommended in most high-risk patients with acute coronary sindromes (ACS). • However, adverse events, especially local access site bleeding, are not uncommon. • The radial approach has been proposed as an alternative to the femoral access to minimize bleedings in ACS, but data are so far unclear.

  3. AIM OF OUR WORK • We thus performed a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing radial vs femoral access in patients with ACS undergoing coronary angiography ± PCI.

  4. METHODS • We performed a meta-analysis of all studies published up to April 2008 comparing radial versus femoral access in patients with ACS, by means of systematic database search (clinicaltrials.gov, Google Scholar, PubMed), and data appraisal. • The primary end-point was the occurrence of net adverse clinical events (NACE), defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization (ie major adverse cardiac events [MACE]) plus major bleeding. • Odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were computed by means of fixed-effect methods.

  5. INCLUDED STUDIES

  6. RESULTS • A total of 4 randomized controlled trials were included, enrolling a total of 458 patients (227 randomized to radial access and 231 randomized to femoral access). • Most (326) patients presented with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction. • At hospital discharge, the radial access was associated with significant reductions in the rate of net adverse clinical events in comparison to the femoral access (24/227 [10.5%] vs 36/231 [15.6%], p=0.05).

  7. RESULTS • Similarly beneficial yet statistically non-significant trends were also seen for death (7/227 [3.1%] vs 11/231 [4.8%]), major adverse cardiac events (21/227 [9.3%] vs 27/231 [11.7%]), and major bleedings (3/227 [1.3%] vs 9/231 [3.9%]; all p>0.05). • Radial access was also associated with a significant reduction in length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference 1.0+-0.1 days, p<0.001).

  8. RISK OF DEATH RISK OF MAJOR BLEEDING

  9. RISK OF MACE RISK OF NACE

  10. RISK OF ACCESS SITE COMPLICATIONS RISK OF PROCEDURAL FAILURE

  11. TOTAL LENGTH OF HOSPITAL STAY IN DAYS Review: Radial vs femoral access in patients undergoing invasive management for acute coronary syndromes (1 August 2008) Comparison: 01 Comparison of radial versus femoral access for acute coronary syndromes Outcome: 07 Length of hospital stay Study Radial Femoral WMD (fixed) WMD (fixed) or sub-category N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) 95% CI 95% CI Mann 1998 68 3.00(0.30) 77 4.50(0.50) -1.50 [-1.63, -1.37] TEMPURA 2003 77 5.70(4.90) 72 7.40(9.50) -1.70 [-4.15, 0.75] RADIAL-AMI 2005 25 4.00(1.00) 25 4.00(1.00) 0.00 [-0.55, 0.55] FARMI 2007 57 7.20(0.50) 57 7.50(0.40) -0.30 [-0.47, -0.13] Total (95% CI) 227 231 -1.00 [-1.10, -0.90] Test for heterogeneity: Chi² = 135.64, df = 3 (P < 0.00001), I² = 97.8% Test for overall effect: Z = 19.26 (P < 0.00001) -10 -5 0 5 10 Favors radial Favors femoral

  12. CONCLUSIONS • The radial access should be considered as the first choice vascular approach in most patients with unstable coronary artery disease managed invasively, given the evident overall clinical benefits. • This holds even truer for those at higher risk of adverse events, such as the elderly, women and those undergoing rescue intervention for failed thrombolysis.

  13. For further slides on these topics please feel free to visit the metcardio.org website:http://www.metcardio.org/slides.html

More Related